Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[rwenzori]

Am I the only one dreading the day this Swa character is able to post in PD? We are going to get flooded (hehe ) with creationist schit.

No you're not the only one. Eish!

 

[rwenzori]

Imagine what would happen if there was a thread asking for evidence against gravity or germ theory, or atomic theory.
Quite ludicrous but maybe entertaining to some degree.

Quiet now - you'll get Phroners started on Bohm just now.

 

[Techne]

ll pretty well explicable sonder design. No need to add a Great Designer, or even Pikkiwoki ( may his name be Mud ).

Gosh, more philosophical claims. Why don't the usual suspects complain about this in the science section?

Surely this would be an obvious outcome for anyone who understands ToE?

Asking for proof against it is almost trolling.

It is, after all, a science.

Imagine what would happen if there was a thread asking for evidence against gravity or germ theory, or atomic theory.
Quite ludicrous but maybe entertaining to some degree.

Careful, there is a distinction between observation (e.g. organisms changing over time aka biological evolution/change, apples falling to the ground aka gravity etc.) and theories explaining these observations.

There are arguments that our sensory organs and our intellect are unable to accurately represent reality as it is (e.g. change may be an illusion). Such arguments result in radical skepticism. We may not find such arguments compelling or even rational, but they are still subjective opinions.

Then there are arguments against the theories trying to explain the observations. And while we may not find such arguments compelling, it still remains our subjective opinion and remember, science is not some "dogma" that cannot change. Claiming that there are no arguments against something just because it is science is treating science as if it is some kind of dogma.

 

[Swa]

All pretty well explicable sonder design. No need to add a Great Designer, or even Pikkiwoki ( may his name be Mud ).

Not the issue. It still exhibits design whether it can be explained by a designer or not.

217 posts and not a single scientific and / or sound logical argument against evolution. I find that telling.

Guess you didn't read the thread then.

 

[rwenzori]

Not the issue. It still exhibits design whether it can be explained by a designer or not.

Exactly the issue. From my COED ( seeing as we are spikkin Eenglish here ):

design
noun

...

3 the purpose or planning that exists behind an action or object.

verb

plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind.

PHRASES

by design as a result of a plan; intentionally.

Try to keep up here, and refrain from convoluted misrepresentations of our language concocted by creationist websites.

 

[alloytoo]

So are you going to address the points? They are right there in the article you referred to twice.

That's an editorial or comment on other articles.

I want your position on neanderthals, in you own words, no quotes and coherent.

Again they're irrelevant. Got nothing to do with the points I raised.

Is that a can't or won't?


Do you believe in a flood event in or about 2348 BC?

How old is the earth?

a) about 6010 years old.

b) about 4.5 Billion years old.

 

[Techne]

Is that a can't or won't?


Do you believe in a flood event in or about 2348 BC?

How old is the earth?

a) about 6010 years old.

b) about 4.5 Billion years old.

Four or five times he hasn't answered you now right? I think that means he won't answer you so you can stop trolling, harassing and stalking the poor person. Move along.

 

[rwenzori]

Four or five times he hasn't answered you now right? I think that means he won't answer you so you can stop trolling, harassing and stalking the poor person. Move along.

Only because he has something to hide, probably a YEC who will look a proper tit admitting to it. I must say, if I were a YEC, I wouldn't admit to it - a bit like announcing you've got crabs LOL.

On the other hand, a honest christian who really believes would not try to hide his/her faith, would not be embarrassed thereby.

And he said, I tell thee, swa, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

 

[Techne]

Only because he has something to hide, probably a YEC who will look a proper tit admitting to it. I must say, if I were a YEC, I wouldn't admit to it - a bit like announcing you've got crabs LOL.

On the other hand, a honest christian who really believes would not try to hide his/her faith, would not be embarrassed thereby.

He does not necessarily have to hide everything. If it was the case then just about every other person that doesn't answer questions have something to hide. Poor alloytoo would have LOTS of skeletons in his closet since the poor chap is unable to answer so many questions. So no, just because someone does not want to play along to the whims and wishes/questions does not imply that they have something to hide.

Move along chap.

 

[rwenzori]

He does not necessarily have to hide everything. If it was the case then just about every other person that doesn't answer questions have something to hide. Poor alloytoo would have LOTS of skeletons in his closet since the poor chap is unable to answer so many questions. So no, just because someone does not want to play along to the whims and wishes/questions does not imply that they have something to hide.

Move along chap.

Can he not speak for himself?

 

[Techne]

Can he not speak for himself?

He can and he does. You and alloytoo can stop stalking the poor chap.

P.S., a meta-ethical moral relativist is far worse than a YEC with crabs.

 

[rwenzori]

He can and he does. You and alloytoo can stop stalking the poor chap.

P.S., a meta-ethical moral relativist is far worse than a YEC with crabs.

Ah well, you can't trust a christian since such a person can abuse religion to justify any act.

Let him answer, if he has nothing to hide.

PS. The cock has crowed twice, nay, thrice.

 

[Techne]

Ah well, you can't trust a christian since such a person can abuse religion to justify any act.

Nice try, but only if the person is a meta-ethical moral relativist.

 

[rwenzori]

Nice try, but only if the person is a meta-ethical moral relativist.

Hehe. No - christians too - for example, remember your setting up the sockpuppet BOÖTES and then the two of you posting most "agreeable" sweet nothings to each other in the name of Jesus. We couldn't really trust old Booties, could we LOL?

 

[alloytoo]

Only because he has something to hide, probably a YEC who will look a proper tit admitting to it. I must say, if I were a YEC, I wouldn't admit to it - a bit like announcing you've got crabs LOL.

It would really be worth knowing. There's no point in debating someone who denies reality.

On the other hand, a honest christian who really believes would not try to hide his/her faith, would not be embarrassed thereby.

YEC's are rarely honest.

 

[Techne]

Hehe. No - christians too - for example, remember your setting up the sockpuppet BOÖTES and then the two of you posting most "agreeable" sweet nothings to each other in the name of Jesus. We couldn't really trust old Booties, could we LOL?

I remember you trying claim it was so. Quite suspicious how you remember this, was that how the name was spelled? Wasn't it the same time your other sockpuppet appeared "telephrony" or telephrone" (among numerous others at another website as well, funny that), also trying to make it look that was another sockpuppet of mine? Mmm, simple question for you old chap.
1) Do you believe there are objectively and intrinsically morally wrong acts?

Simple yes or no would do. I will understand if you don't want to answer.

 

[TelePhrone]

I remember you trying claim it was so. Quite suspicious how you remember this, was that how the name was spelled? Wasn't it the same time your other sockpuppet appeared "telephrony" or telephrone", also trying to make it look that was another sockpuppet of mine? Mmm, simple question for you old chap.
1) Do you believe there are objectively and intrinsically morally wrong acts?

Simple yes or no would do. I will understand if you don't want to answer.

Talking to me?

Me a sockpuppet? With a name like that, who would guess?

1) No. If by "objectively and intrinsically" you mean from an external non-human point of view. Not that I know of any external non-human beings that might have a moral point of view, at least since Homo Erectus and Neanderthal Man died out. Maybe aliens - yes, maybe them.

 

[Techne]

Talking to me?

Me a sockpuppet? With a name like that, who would guess?

1) No. If by "objectively and intrinsically" you mean from an external non-human point of view. Not that I know of any external non-human beings that might have a moral point of view, at least since Homo Erectus and Neanderthal Man died out. Maybe aliens - yes, maybe them.

I rest my case, go stalk someone else please.

 

[rwenzori]

I rest my case, go stalk someone else please.

And what case might that be?

 

[Swa]

Try to keep up here, and refrain from convoluted misrepresentations of our language concocted by creationist websites.

No misrepresentations here. You can deny the sky is blue, does not change the facts.

That's an editorial or comment on other articles.

I want your position on neanderthals, in you own words, no quotes and coherent.

Why not just say so instead of going on with floods... It's real simple, editorial or article or comment or whatever, the facts remain. A bunch of "experts" disagree on whether or not there was disease. Most likely there was some disease then. Even if there wasn't some would still not even classify them as anything but human. Sounds like they were human then.

On the other hand, a honest christian who really believes would not try to hide his/her faith, would not be embarrassed thereby.

On the contrary not replying has nothing to do with honesty. I said it already my belief has nothing to do with the subject. If we're going to discuss beliefs here you'll have even less of a leg to stand on than me.